November 7 Ballot Propositions

Two proposals in the November 7 elections will direct the way taxpayer money will be used for transportation in California.

Proposition 1A places new requirements on how gas tax money is to be spent and reinforces a previously passed ballot proposition with the same effect. Proposition 1B authorizes the state to float $19.5 billion in bonds for road, rail and public transit improvements.

Five other initiatives also have varying effects on transportation money and policies.

The first and best source to consult on these propositions is the California Secretary of State’s General Election Voter Guide. These should have already been mailed out, but comprehensive information is also available online.

All information contained here is drawn from the guide.

Proposition 1A is not a new tax, but reinforces a mandate from Proposition 42 requiring gasoline excise and sales taxes to be spent on transportation purposes. That proposition allowed the state legislature to borrow said funds to offset budget shortfalls. Proposition 1A would only allow the legislature to borrow said funds for financial hardship twice in a 10-year period, and requires the loans to be fully repaid in three years.

Proposition 1B authorizes the state to float bonds of $19.9 billion for road and transit projects. Repaying the principal and interest on the bonds is estimated to cost $38.9 billion over 30 years.

The legislative analyst broke down how the money is disbursed. The largest share, $11.25 billion, is for “congestion reduction, highway and local road improvements.” Subcategories for public transit in this category allots $2 billion for “increasing highways, roads and transit capacity” and $1 billion for “providing grants for locally funded transportation projects.”

Public transportation has its own subcategory, with $4 billion for improving local transit services and intercity rail, including purchasing fixed assets.

Goods movement will receive $3.2 billion. All but $200 million is focused on logistics improvement for roads, rail and ports. The remaining funds are for school bus replacement.

The last category, $1.475 billion, is for “safety and security.” Most of the money is for security and disaster preparedness of transit systems. A quarter-million dollars is for improving railroad crossings. Seismic retrofitting of bridges and overpasses is alloted $125 million. The remainder, $100 million, is for security grants to water facilities: ports, harbors and ferry terminals.

The other propositions that may provide money to transportation, or change regulations, include propositions 1C, 1D, 84, 87 and 90.

Proposition 1C is a housing bond measure. If passes, the state can float $2.85 billion in bonds for various housing measures. Transit-oriented development has a line-item for $300 million, but potentially all money can be used for the various housing subcategories to locate near public transportation service.

Proposition 1D is a $10.4 billion bond for educational facilities, both Kindergarten-12 grade and higher education. Two line items, for a total of $129 million, is set for “environment-friendly projects” and “joint-use projects,” which might also incorporate public transit, especially considering many transit users are students.

Proposition 84 is another bond measure, alloting close to $5.4 billion for water projects and natural access resources. A $90-million line item for “incentives for conservation in local planning” may incorporate public transportation plans.

Proposition 87 imposes a tax on oil production within California. The taxes raised are supposed to fund alternative-energy and energy-efficiency programs, including vehicles. The taxes raised are programmed to the following accounts: gasoline and diesel reduction, 57.5 percent; energy research for universities, 26.75 percent; energy incentives, 9.75 percent; public education and administration, 3.5 percent; and community college vocational training, 2.5 percent.

Proposition 90 was drafted in response to the Kelo vs. City of New London case. The Supreme Court ruled that a government can condemn a private property from one owner and transfer it to another using eminent domain to promote economic redevelopment in the public interest.

This constitutional amendment would not only prevent Kelo-style eminent domain condemnations, but also requires government to pay property owners for any economic loss due to new laws or regulations and to sell back the condemned property to the original owners or their heirs at fair market value if plans are abandoned. If passed, Proposition 90 may affect a broad range of public projects.

The last day to register to vote is October 23. For local election information, consult the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s web site.